Moonk:goldwarbird: colinspooky: Hey, subbs - you linked to wrong story. This one says "....woman is facing a charge of disorderly conduct...."

Read TFA.

"Due to her seemingly intoxicated condition and her repeated indecent condition, the officer placed her under arrest for disorderly conduct"

So why wasn't the charge indecent exposure and not disorderly conduct?

Haven't many courts ruled that topless is fine for women since men can go shirtless? The whole "equal treatment under the law" deal?

/In that vein, BIE?//EIP///do it for the crying bald eagles!

In Gwinnett County (where this took place), the disorderly conduct ordinance includes indecent exposure (link in article):

No person shall commit any of the following acts in a public place:a. An act or a simulated act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;b. A lewd exposure or indecent fondling of the sexual organs;c. A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person; ord. A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity.

goldwarbird:Moonk: goldwarbird: colinspooky: Hey, subbs - you linked to wrong story. This one says "....woman is facing a charge of disorderly conduct...."

Read TFA.

"Due to her seemingly intoxicated condition and her repeated indecent condition, the officer placed her under arrest for disorderly conduct"

So why wasn't the charge indecent exposure and not disorderly conduct?

Haven't many courts ruled that topless is fine for women since men can go shirtless? The whole "equal treatment under the law" deal?

/In that vein, BIE?//EIP///do it for the crying bald eagles!

In Gwinnett County (where this took place), the disorderly conduct ordinance includes indecent exposure (link in article):

No person shall commit any of the following acts in a public place:a. An act or a simulated act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;b. A lewd exposure or indecent fondling of the sexual organs;c. A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person; ord. A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity.

See, it's clause "d" that is annoying. Not wearing a hat is partial nudity. A bikini is partial nudity, hell a burqa is still partial nudity.

In Gwinnett County (where this took place), the disorderly conduct ordinance includes indecent exposure (link in article):

No person shall commit any of the following acts in a public place:a. An act or a simulated act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;b. A lewd exposure or indecent fondling of the sexual organs;c. A lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person; ord. A lewd appearance in a state of partial or complete nudity.

See, it's clause "d" that is annoying. Not wearing a hat is partial nudity. A bikini is partial nudity, hell a burqa is still partial nudity.

I suppose a bikini is fine as long as isn't lewd (?). Lewd seems to be their real litmus test as far as indecent exposure goes. I'm assuming they consider subsection "a" lewd by definition.